A parallel inquiry during an ongoing investigation is impermissible, and trial court can reject witness summons if it violates the law.

ORDER :

G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397 , 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 07/11/2024 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) Shivpuri in S.T. No. 10/2020 by which an application filed by applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning Shri Kamal Maurya, Additional S.P. Shivpuri has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that during the course of investigation, Shri Kamal Maurya, Additional S.P. had conducted a parallel enquiry under the orders of the then S.P., Shivpuri. Since, he had found that allegations, which are being made by the witnesses are false, therefore, he had exonerated the applicant and, therefore, he is an important witness to prove the innocence of applicant.

3. It is submitted that Trial Court has rejected the application primarily on the ground that the trial is pending for the last 4 years and co-accused Veerendra and Devendra are in jail for the last more than 2 years and under the orders of High Court, the trial is to be decided at the earliest.

4. Challenging the aforesaid order, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that early disposal of a case cannot be ground to reject the application. The application should have been decided on merits whereas, it appears that the Trial Court was swayed away by the fact that the case is to be decided as earliest.

Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for the state.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The primary question for consideration is as to whether during the pendency of investigation, the S.P. can direct to conduct a parallel enquiry or not?

6. This Court in the case of Deepak @ Preetam Verma and another V/s State of M.P. and another by order dated 11/09/2018 passed in MCRC No. 12592/2018 has held that parallel enquiry under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. during the pendency of investigation is not maintainable. The said order has been affirmed by Supreme court by order dated 18/01/2022 passed in SLP (criminal) No. 1345/2019 ( Surendra Singh Gaur V/s State of M.P. and others ) and held as under -

"We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and we are of the view that neither Section 36 of the Code nor the circulars of which a reference has been made during the course of arguments in any way provides for holding an independent and parallel inquiry along with the investigation going ahead in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017.

In the instant case, a complaint was made for holding fair investigation in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017, we find no reason the officers under whose instructions an independent inquiry was initiated apart from the investigation which was going ahead in reference to the crime, in contravention of the procedure prescribed by law.

After the matter is examined at length by the High Court under the impugned judgment(s) for which reference has been made that an independent inquiry which was conducted in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017 was in no manner contemplated by law and in this reference observations have been made in regard to the conduct of the officers in holding an inquiry in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State filed their counter affidavit and has placed on record a circular dated 26th June, 2010 under the instructions of the Inspector General of Police, Madhya Pradesh. We find that the circular of the State Government is in conformity with Section 36 of the Code, but the procedure which was followed by the officers in holding inquiry was not in consonance with the circular of which a reference has been made by the High Court under the impugned judgment.

After hearing the learn